10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Ivy Matt]

Here's another "fun" idea for a list.

To wit, a list of the persons/entities who have the most to lose if RossiFusion really performs as advertised.

a suggested entry: the Russian Federation.

Phooey! Foiled again! Next time I will use German accent instead of American.

[KitemanSA]

The video with steam exiting into the pail is a good example of the condensation sputtering from the hose.

folks,
If an experiment indicates that the output from a steam source shows that the output from Rossi's machine in the Krivit video is consistent with ~5kW of power usage, then any condensation simply indicates that the machine made MORE energy somehow. No?

[seedload]

By using more exotic structural materials like tungsten, another reactor design might only use a very small amount of hydrogen, but one must ask if such a design would be cost effective over its design life.

Are we really concerned over fractional GRAMS of hydrogen leakage?

Not with two ginormous tanks of hydrogen right there. I mean, those tanks will clearly handle a few fractional grams of hydrogen over the 1 gram of hydrogen a day that they already provide.

I guess Rossi is like my wife when she goes to Sam's Club (wholesale shopping).

[tomclarke]

Also check how much Rossi sweats under scrutiny!

My poker player opinion is that he definitely got more agitated during the steam part of the video. He clearly showed a 'tell' of wanting to end the steam conversation twice in the video. The tell is to give a short 'definitive' answer to a question and then quickly turn away in an attempt to forgo follow up questions. It was clear as day, IMHO. No thermal camera needed.

The steam area of the conversation was particularly uncomfortable to him. Might be because he was mad about it, as he demonstrated later. Might be because he knew it was a vulnerable part of his demonstration.

Also note that when he first picks up the hose, he pretty clearly tries to drain out all of the water in it before showing the steam.

Eureka.

The Ny teknik test bugged me a little because they show how much water emerges << water input.

Could be Rossi deliberately emptying the output bucket of course, it was not always observed I believe.

But maybe water could just collect in the hose.

400mm2 (so Rossi claims) X 10m (?) = 4l

Total input for the first Ny Teknik test, for example, ws 8kg = 8l. So we have 50% of the water which on basis of input & output measurements would appear to have vapourised actually stored in the output hose!

To my shame, I had not previosuly thought of this wrinkle. But then I'm not a magician...

Has it been aired before on this thread?

[sparkyy0007]

The video with steam exiting into the pail is a good example of the condensation sputtering from the hose.

folks,
If an experiment indicates that the output from a steam source shows that the output from Rossi's machine in the Krivit video is consistent with ~5kW of power usage, then any condensation simply indicates that the machine made MORE energy somehow. No?

If we can somehow with an experiment determine the energy required for that quantity of steam, I think that's all we need.
Let me clarify:
We don't know the real temperature (around 100-101) or quantity of the steam coming from the reactor, but we do know (or are pretty certain)
of the limits of the dimensions of the hose. From this we calculate the external area then the radiation loss minus thermal radiation gained
from the environment at (305k).
Add to this convection heat loss ~8Wm^2k.
I calculated this out previously to about 403W with my assumptions.
That 403W is added to the the experimental determination of the
energy input from a steam generator and the sum of the energy must be the reactor output limit.
Assuming negligible superheat from the reactor the 403 watts of hose loss must come from latent,
therefor can also be used to determine the rate of condensate production in the hose.

You see, we can be relatively confident of the amount of condensate production just by the thermal properties of the hose itself.

[D Tibbets]

I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!

I watched this video also. There is more aviable information to analyze than I've seen before. Using the data he provided:
~ 750 Watts input power
~ 7 liters of water input / hr
Initial water temperature ~ 30 degrees C.
Output water temperature 100.1 degrees C.
Tape around the device is insulating rubber, not lead?
Geiger counter reading is ~ 0.15 micro Seiverts per hour, ~ 0.13 when he held the meter in his hand at a distance of ~ 1.3-2 times further away from the reactor. *
Input water tube ~ 1/8 inch, output hose ~ 1/2 to ~ 2/3rd inches- internal diameter ~ 1/4th inch
..........................

Dan Tibbets

Dan,
7000 g/ 3600 s = ~1.95 g/s water flow
Delta T 100-26=74 deg
Heat capacity of water 4.19 J/g*deg
Water evaporation heat 2250 J/g

And in a case if all inputting water will be evaporated.

• Power required for heating to up to 100C: 1.95*4.19*74=604W
• Power required for evaporation: 1.95*2250=4387W
Total: 4991W=~5kW
The second point is significant. As every 10% of humidity makes loss of 438.7W in his power estimation. “My steam is absolutely dry” – he said.
..............
But we don't know was there a water prior to the beginning of experiment in a jacket? How long time experiment goes? As for long time experiment Rossi using the flowing cooling system is right considering equity of mass input/output. And you are wrong.

But:
• Now let's admit that his flow is not 1.95 g/s. But much less. There is not flow-meter in experiment.
• Then let's take into account that he has 750W input.
• Let’s also admit that hydrogen consumes not 1g (per which time?) but much more. As nobody measured.
• Let’s also admit that he has non-accounted power input bypassing ampere-meter

And nature of his reaction from nuclear will become the conventional chemical.

PS: Krivit said the right thing that for proving better to increase water flow for avoiding phase transition into steam.

As pointed out, my number crunching in the former post suffered. That is what I get from using archaic Calories (I should have been using calories (Small c) to begin with. And my recollection of the heat of vaporization was off . So I repeated the evaluation with hopefully more accurate final numbers(?).
Note that steady state conditions are assumed, the pipes, tubes and initially water in the device have all reached temperature equilibrium.

Some conversions
1 J= 0.000239 Calories ( kcal) or 0.239 cal
1 cal = 4.187 J= energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree C
1 Cal= 4,187 J I had this wrong, I should have been using cal, not Cal).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

Energy to heat 2 g (ml) of water by 1 degree C = 8.372 J
Flow rate - 2 ml/s means the Joules required rate is J/s, which is equivalent to Watts so 8.372 Watts required.

Quoted temperature of the input water was 30.1 degrees C
Energy to heat 2 ml of water from 30.1 degrees to 100 degrees C= 69.9 delta T, so 8.374 J/s/C * 69.9C = 585 J/s or 585 Watts.

I used ~ 7000 ml/ he as the flow rate, more accurately it would be 7200 ml/ hr. This is derived from the stated flow rate of 2 ml/ s.

A note on the flow metering. Assuming honesty, weighing the weight of the intake water tank at the beginning and at the end of an hour (or some other time interval) would give an accurate measure of the average flow rate.

Heat of vaporization of water= 2.26 kJ/ g. = 2260 J/ g. This would be ~ 540 calories. My recollection that 100 calories (and certainly not 100 Cal) was a gross rounding error.

A recalculation of the heat energy to convert 2 grams (ml) of water / sec. to steam at a constant temperature of 100 degrees C = 2260 J/g * 2 g/s= 4520 J/s or 4520 Watts.

From above , if the excess heat energy after heating the water to 100 degrees C was 750 total -585 Watts = 165 Watts or J/s. This could convert 165 J / 2260 J/g = ~ 0.07 grams of water converted to steam per second. This divided into the flow of 2 g/ second gives a conversion percentage of ~ 3.5 %.
0.07 g of water is ~ 0.004 moles, which is equal to ~0.09 liters of steam / sec.
This is hopefully a more accurate description of the stream output given that 750 Watts of heating power was applied to 2 g/s water flow that started out at 30.1 degrees C.

Would this more closely match the appearance of the output in the video?

Note that this calculation concerns the steam output, It says nothing about the other gasses. Primarily nitrogen and dissolved CO2 would make up this out gassing. I don't know the volumes this would represent but I am guessing that this would increase the total vapor output to perhaps a little over 100 ml/ second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat


Dan Tibbets

[sparkyy0007]

The video with steam exiting into the pail is a good example of the condensation sputtering from the hose.

folks,
If an experiment indicates that the output from a steam source shows that the output from Rossi's machine in the Krivit video is consistent with ~5kW of power usage, then any condensation simply indicates that the machine made MORE energy somehow. No?

I was thinking more into your good question.
I think the evidence of the condensate spewing into the pail means saturated water (that was never steam) coming from the reactor along with condensate if the system was at equilibrium.

Any steam experts out there??

[Giorgio]

Meeting took longer than expected and I didn't have time to meet and talk about UoB contract with my friend.

Sorry guys, maybe I'll have time in start of next week.

[Axil]

By using more exotic structural materials like tungsten, another reactor design might only use a very small amount of hydrogen, but one must ask if such a design would be cost effective over its design life.

Are we really concerned over fractional GRAMS of hydrogen leakage?

Not with two ginormous tanks of hydrogen right there. I mean, those tanks will clearly handle a few fractional grams of hydrogen over the 1 gram of hydrogen a day that they already provide.

I guess Rossi is like my wife when she goes to Sam's Club (wholesale shopping).

Just a thought, one possibility if tungsten is used to replace stainless steel: “the two ginormous tanks of hydrogen” might be removed from the design making the reactor far safer and cheaper.

[sparkyy0007]

The video with steam exiting into the pail is a good example of the condensation sputtering from the hose.

folks,
If an experiment indicates that the output from a steam source shows that the output from Rossi's machine in the Krivit video is consistent with ~5kW of power usage, then any condensation simply indicates that the machine made MORE energy somehow. No?

I was thinking more into your good question.
I think the evidence of the condensate spewing into the pail means saturated water (that was never steam) coming from the reactor along with condensate if the system was at equilibrium.

Any steam experts out there??

Ok, I am sure.
If we can make the following assumptions on the hose and conditions, we can determine a maximum condensate production rate.
1)No significant superheat ie < 101C
2)BP has plugged the well... I mean 101kpa
3)Amb temp ~30 C
4)Hose external area ~0.346 m^2
5)Emissivity of the hose ~1.0
6)Convective heat loss ~8W/mk
7)No conversion of water in to copper

Regardless of the steam flow, the pipe with the assumed physical properties in the stated environment will loose about 403W of energy at 100C.
This energy must come from the steam either from available superheat or latent condensation.
With with negligible energy available from superheat the latent heat from steam will produce .000178kg/s of saturated water in the hose.
That's 178ml/sec which is about a drop/sec.
If any significant superheat was coming from the reactor this amount would be reduced.
In the pail video, the hose was being manipulated so it wasn't at equilibrium,
but that did look like a lot of water... I know.. speculation.
So if more water than that is exiting the hose at equilibrium raw water
must be exiting the reactor in addition to steam.
Q.E.D.

[Ivy Matt]

There is a documentary on Rossi and the E-Cat titled "Low Energy Nuclear Revolution", which was released about a week ago in Italian. Now it's available with English subtitles. Warning: it's 40 minutes long.

YouTube
Vimeo

Some now-familiar names are interviewed. My favorite part is the interview with Celani, where he tells how he snuck in 20 kg worth of equipment to the demonstration on January 14 and tried to surreptitiously monitor the gamma rays, electrical interference, etc. One thing that struck me was that everybody (Celani, Stremmenos, Bianchini) seemed to be saying that some high-energy gamma rays were able to escape the device's shielding, and that from these gamma rays one could use spectrum analysis to determine the composition of the secret catalyst.

Yeah, I know we've gone over this before. However, in light of the self-destruct mechanism and all the other secrecy surrounding the secret catalyst...what will prevent a future E-Cat customer from standing around such a device with a gamma-ray detector once Defkalion and Ampenergo have started releasing them "into the wild", so to speak?

Oh, also we have this from Prof. Levi: the thing may be able to produce neutrons.

[breakaway]

Her is a new interview with Levi and discusses the new contract
http://www.queryonline.it/2011/06/23/e- ... eppe-levi/

[chrismb]

I have just done a preliminary trial using a kettle on a gas hob. I allowed a kettle to get to a steady state by continuing heating after it reached boiling, then allowed it to boil continuously for a few moments to get to a 'steady state'. I measured the rate of vapour emission by removing from heat and measuring the mass, then boiling for a minute at a time and re-weighing. The vapour emitted was a surprisingly steady 25g/min. (Lowest was 23g, highest was 26g).

This is 1.5kg/hr of water.

To boil this much 100C water should theoretically take an energy input of 2257kJ x 1.5 = 3.4MJ/hr = 940W.

If we were also heating up 1.5kg of water from 26C to 100C, then that'd be an additional 4.2J * 1500 * 34 = 214kJ/hr = 60W.

So this adds up to a neat 1kW, with the caveat that this assumes it is all 'dry' steam, fully evaporated.

However, I have also caused a restriction by adding the hose to the kettle. I do not know how this interacts with the kettle, but if we are being generous then we might just say that this makes no difference and these following videos show the equivalent of 1kW worth of energy driving off steam.

So here are the videos of this presumed 1kW worth of 25g/min steam exiting a 1/2" pipe. Sorry if they are not up to that much, but this was just a quick point-and-shoot effort of a basic setup.

Steam exit from the pipe: Main point is that the steam is clearly ejected from the pipe some distance in a straight line, no 'whisping' and gentle floating out of the pipe, and that you can see no visible 'steam' at the pipe exit until it slows down and condenses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03dTwd7ycII

This is bubbling under water to give you a feeling for this. This was a bit nerve-racking, actually, because it was spitting quite a bit and steam scolds and pipes at 100C aren't things I want to go near. I did not get the feeling that it was actually 'bubbling' through the water, more like it created a region around the end of the pipe where the water was pushed away so the steam exited straight to air. I would need a deeper water to get 'bubbles' floating upwards!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuRsNKo61cE


My feeling is that these results look close to the nytek video ( http://youtu.be/sVEBCN6D13w @3:25) and it would be a subjective thing to make a judgement on whether there was more steam in mine or not, but I feel confident there was not less on account that the spitting in mine under water seems stronger. As compared with the Krivit video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E @11:25), well, it bears no comparison!

So for the nytek video I could not exclude a claim of 500W up to the 1000W output based purely on this subjective eyeballing sanity check, but for the Krivit video it looks very much to me like it is no where near 1000W.

[seedload]

Seedload - I would hate to be a criminal and have you in the jury.

If you insist on using circumstantial evidence then you have to accept circumstantial evidence that supports the device is real and there is plenty of it.

You do realize that you just said I would hate you on my jury if I was guilty:)

Anyway, I get your point. My analogy was probably bad because it reverses the burden of proof.

[Crawdaddy]

Chrismb

Awesome job!

I have a suggestion that might make your experiment more effective.

At the moment you have to calculate the input power based on the mass of water lost from your kettle and assume dry steam. This is almost definitely not the case since there is likely no superheating of the steam.

If you measure the time it takes for a known mass of water to reach 100C (using like a meat thermometer or something) then you can estimate the actual input power and determine a measure of wetness/dryness for your steam.

If you can show your steam quality by this method then the Rossi experiment will be more effectively debunked.